Santorum and Romney Effectively Tied

Hmmm. Sounds like S&M. Details please.

Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove must be speaking daily on the phone trying to figure a way to get Mitt in front. The R candidates are a joke and everyone, even the Rs, know it. The convention may be really interesting.

Sounds to me like Rick and Mitt are only “tied” for the position of least objectionable THIS WEEK. This is a question of which of the Three Stooges will the two stooges be and how stoogey are they at the moment. Yuk.Yuk.Yuk.

We know you like your S/M quips. Do you know this one (from the noted author and rapist, Arthur Koestler)? The masochist of course would prefer a very cold shower first thing in the morning, so he takes a hot one.

Hadn’t heard that one.

While the Republican party will likely rally behind whomever their nominee is,…

whoever (check it out)

Thanks, AitchD. I do wish FDL would hire a couple of editors …. just because.

Whomever is the object of the preposition “behind.”

One says “behind him” not “behind he.”

But then JW’s blogs wouldn’t be collector’s items.

It looks to be so, but it’s actually the subject of its own clause. The ‘whoever’ clause is the preposition’s object.

Ricky’s wearing stonewashed jeans in the pic, in obvious solidarity with prisoners and farm workers. John Edwards also wore them on the campaign trail.

The masochist asked the sadist to “Hit me.”
The sadist said, “No.”

eCAHNomics has been trotting that one out a few times.

Romney is obviously the NOT Sally Fields….”You really, really” don’t like me…..Got it….

Yeah, I’d like a ruling on this one….who/whom

Well, unlike the other Latin cognates (which, what, and so on) that come from the qu- stems of Indo-European, the w is silent in who and whom. Anglo-Saxon spelled those words beginning hw- and sounded with that throaty Germanic aitch. An urban legend has it that a scribe transposed the letters to wh-, which is an unspeakable ‘phoneme’ as it’s written. Nonetheless, you can still hear the aitch in the wh- words at their beginnings from some speakers.

Michigan’s the key now.

If Santorum wins or runs a tight race against Romney there, then it’s a horse race. If not, then…not. :o)

Who would be the judge? In its first edition (1928?) the OED included a usage note for ‘whom’, that the form is “no longer current in natural colloquial speech”. Blogging is the written equivalent of what the OED calls natural colloquial speech, assuming it’s employed by educated ‘speakers’. Marcy Wheeler explained to me that blogging is not formal, academic writing, and so the bar is not on Olympus.

Then your original comment loses all relevance. You can’t have it both ways. Rules count or they don’t.

Cherry picking is fun!

You’re referring to my @ 6 comment? To my reply to your @ 8? In any case, I don’t know what you can mean since I haven’t suggested any use for ‘whom’ or ‘whomever’. My original comment on the issue was “whoever” as the correct form for the clause’s misuse of “whomever” along with a parenthetical link to a popular grammar book. Later in my reply to your misinterpretation, I explained the grammar of the sentence’s parts, about which there can’t still be any question. “Rules count or they don’t” doesn’t hold sway among careful writers. Somerset Maugham published a small essay on usage including many ‘rules’ for good writing, and at the last he said to break any of those rules rather than commit anything “outright barbarous”.

You can’t have it both ways.

In JW’s sentence, ‘whomever’ is simply illiterate.

Any questions?

Any questions?

Yes, wasn’t it George Orwell in his essay ‘Politics And The English Language’ who advised breaking any of the rules (as he composed them) “sooner than say anything outright barbarous”?

One more: why do you capitalize articles and conjunctions within your quoted titles?

That’s easy: about mid October, Mitt will become the final anti-Romney candidate.

Thanks…I love this kind of stuff….Good Morning ;)